Young man works to pass the Snellen-DMV test

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by Otis Brown, Nov 5, 2004.

  1. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Friends,

    We have had many a pleasant discussion about the
    fact that the natural eye controls its
    refractive status to its average visual

    The real difficulty is in implementing
    this scientific truth.

    It takes fortitude to do this. Here
    "Shawn" is completeing the last steps
    in returning his distant vision to 20/20
    (from 20/60).

    Enjoy the "denial" of scientific truth
    we will receive from the
    ODs on this site.

    I have changed "Shawn" name to protect him.


    Some people dream of success ...
    while others wake up and work hard at it.


    Quality is never an accident,
    it is always the result of;
    high intention,
    sincere effort,
    intelligent direction,
    and skillful execution --
    it represents the wise choice
    of many alternatives.

    Subject: The last stage of vision clearing to 20/20

    Shawn had a prescription for -1.5 diopters (20/60). He asked
    me to help him get "rid" of nearsightedness. I said that I would
    help him on a scientific level -- but he, personally, would have to
    do all the work.

    Shawn worked very hard, and cleared to pass the 20/30 line
    consistently. I explained to him that the "medical" part of the
    job was complete at that point.

    Shawn stated that he could see 20/15 through a minus lens. I
    explained the fact that he had the potential for 20/20 vision --
    but it would take a great deal more SCIENTIFIC work, since 20/20
    is not required of him.

    He choose to continue -- out of curiosity and scientific
    interest. After several more months of intensive work, he reached

    The following is for your intellectual curiosity.




    To: Shawn

    From: Otis

    Subject: Clearing your distant vision from -1.5 diopters to

    Dear Shawn,

    A large group of scientists consider their work to be
    "enhanced" common sense.

    Over the last eight months, you have used your mind and
    personal persistance to solve a "world class" problem for
    yourself. That is a major accomplishment -- although practically
    no one but you will know what you have done.

    You now far exceed the legal (Snellen-DMV-20/40) line on the
    eye chart. I think you also will achieve 20/20 in a month
    or so.

    This is a tribute to your own curiosity and interest -- and
    will help you "protect" your distant vision for the next six
    years. (I assume you are going to college.)

    The "price" we must pay to keep our distant vision, is the
    price you have now paid. It is not money, but a wise choice
    between alternatives.

    Additional commentary:

    ----- Original Message -----
    Shawn> I checked my vision and read 3/5 charecters on the 20/20
    line. I'm thinking this wil go on for about a month and
    then i should start passing the 20/20 line.

    Otis > This is a "world of improvement" over your -1.5 D
    prescription and 20/60 vision. Congratulations!

    Otis > Many FAA examiners will simply check that you read some of
    the characters to pass the line. Obviously if you can read
    NO characters -- you fail the line. You pass, my friend.

    Shawn> I believe that Mike will be successfull, he seems to be
    doing fine right now and I think he will continue the
    effort. I think it takes a person who has been successful
    with the plus lens to really appreciate the effort it takes
    to clear your distance vision using the plus.

    Otis > I believe that if Mike is persistent, he will clear his
    distant vision to pass the Snellen-DMV test. The
    difficulty of "prevention" is that each day you must again
    make the decision to continue to use of the plus. Many
    (perhaps most) people (with little understanding) will
    start it -- with no clear idea of what they are doing.
    After a week or so -- and seeing no "progress" -- they will
    quit. It takes a person of great resolve to carry out
    true-prevention. Only after they personallly see "success"
    of this nature (pass the Snellen) will the person be
    convinced of the necessity of using the plus "correctly."


    Otis Brown, Nov 5, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Otis Brown

    Guest Guest

    Sure Otis and to your (Otis) information, I'm the Pope.

    Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

    I declare that Otis idea about preventing myopia in humans must be

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
    Guest, Nov 7, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Otis Brown

    RM Guest

    Exactly-- Otis thinks all myopes are accommodative myopes.
    RM, Nov 7, 2004
  4. Otis Brown

    Guest Guest

    I agree Mike,but this is explained so many times to Otis, that's why I
    wanted to react this way.
    After all , Otis never showed up with a real verifiable case.
    In other words, he is a storyteller, nothing more nothing less.

    Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

    I declare that Otis idea about preventing myopia in humans must be

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
    Guest, Nov 7, 2004
  5. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Friends,

    Shawn was measured by an optometrist (officially)
    at -1.5 diopters.

    If Shawn was an "accommodation myope" then WHY DID NOT

    He just spun wheels on the phoropter and produced
    a -1.5 diopter prescription.

    Only Shawn's determined effort resulted in the
    fact that his natural eyes changed their
    REFRACTIVE STATE by +1.5 diopters.

    Further, this is HARD WORK, requiring a good
    mind and an careful review of the experimental
    data taken from the ADOLESCENT PRIMATE EYE.

    Yes, prevention with the plus is indeed difficult,
    requiring a great deal of patience and good judgment.

    Only Shawn knows this and sees the result.


    Otis Brown, Nov 8, 2004
  6. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    I will pass your commentary to Shawn.

    Mike> Shawn chose -1.50 because of his level of tonic accommodation.

    Otis> This is NOT what happened. The OD had Shawn read
    the Snellen through a phoropter by the standard method
    of the industry. He read -1.5 diopters. That was
    his "refractive error". There was NO DISCUSSION of
    "tonic accommodation",

    Mike> The doctor
    Otis> The supposition is always that -1.5 diopters is
    due to "heredity" and therefore nothing cna be done
    about it -- and -1.5 diopters is it. Just get used to it.

    Mike> Also, doctors know that most patients
    Otis> You are absoluty correct on that point. Very few
    people will "accept" advocacy for prevention from an OD.
    But when Jonathan figured it out -- did it himself -- then
    his understanding and preception changed completely.
    In fact, Johathan had to do this work UNDER HIS OWN CONTROL
    or he would not have believed the results.

    Mike> They will resent the idea that their myopia
    is "self-induced" ...

    Otis> Why would they "resent" the proven fact that
    tne natural eye's refractive status moves negative
    when you place it in a more-confined visual environment.
    I think YOU resent this scientific fact.

    Mike> and will resent being charged for the doctor's time and
    Otis> Again -- no doubt true. But they can read prevention
    advocacy sites for free, and decide THAT ISSUE for themselves.

    Mike>? So "curing myopia" remains the domain of unlicensed practitioners
    Otis> I NEVER use the word "cure". The term is that the
    natural eye "changes it refractive status".

    Otis> It is true that a 14 year-old is not a "licenced
    practitoner", but he is a wise young man, and
    has a good technical sense. Further, since he
    has cleared his vision to 20/20, he now knows
    both how to do it -- and the reasons for it.
    He also knows the "down" rate for college students
    is -1.3 diopters over four years, and knows
    that he must continue work with both his
    eye-chart and the plus lens. But that is
    his choice -- under HIS control.

    Mike> The doctor was not concerned about making Shawn worse because the best human
    Otis> In scientic fact, the adolescent eye controls its
    refractive status to BOTH the environemnt, and the minus lens.
    This is direct "input-output" testing in a pure-scientific
    format. Again, that is the type of scientific data
    that Shawn reviewed has he was working to clear
    his distant vision to 20/20.

    Mike> Instead, they wear glasses for a few years and then as they lose
    Otis> Again, your "dream". The down rate for children
    (wearing a mins lens) is -1/2 diopter per year -- for
    as long as they are in school and receive stronger
    minus lenses. If they start wearing a -1.0 diopters
    at age 13, and go through 7 more years of schoool they
    can expect to be -3.5 diopters more myopic, for
    a total of 4.5 diopters at college graduation.
    No, Mike, that myopia is not going to "go away".

    Mike> When this happens, some people consider it miraculous and are led to publish
    Otis> Your opinion, Mike. I am certain Shawn will review
    it carefully as he maintains 20/20 throug the next
    seven years of school.

    Mike> These same people
    Otis> Are you stating that 20/20 is not good enough to pass the DMV test?



    cc: Shawn and other interested parties.
    Otis Brown, Nov 9, 2004
  7. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    Thanks for your additional commentary.

    As you know, I have friends in both optometry
    and opthalmology.

    And specifically, I have one friend who is a
    highly qualified optometrist who advocates
    exactly what I adovicate -- that the person
    be clearly informed of the "preventive" alterative
    BEFORE that first minus lens is placed on his face.

    Your (minus-lens) method is understandable. It
    creates impressive sharpness of vision, and perhaps
    most people will "turn down" prevention at
    the 20/50 level.

    But when a young man "Shawn" wakes-up to the alternative
    and realizes that he has a choice -- even if he
    has to "do it himself", then perhaps that
    is "better science" than anything you have
    to offer.

    In any event I will send your statement to
    a "professional" optometrist who respects the
    individual's "right-of-choice" and will offer
    support for BOTH methods.

    I will read and respond to you thoughtful review
    in due course. But I certainly recommend
    to my sisters's children, and their children
    that they be very careful about

    1. Putting their nose on a page (i.e., reading at -10 diopters)

    2. Rejecting the use of the preventive lens at the 20/50 level.
    (You do not get a "second chance" if you reject "prevention"
    at that point.)



    cc: Dr. Steve Leung

    Otis Brown, Nov 9, 2004
  8. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    "Shawn" enjoys you analysis and requests your email
    so he can "talk" to you.

    He does enjoy:

    1. 20/20 vision
    2. Reviewing your statements that it is
    impossible to get to 20/20 from -1.5 diopters.




    Dear Tony,

    I am pleased you enjoy our technical discussion
    about the dynamic behavior of the natural eye.

    I like Mike, and I am certain he is an
    excellent OD -- doing what he believes
    is right.

    Only when Mike states that true-prevention
    is IMPOSSIBLE do I strongly disagree.

    If he stated that true-prevention was
    very difficult, then we could agree on
    many of these issues.

    Steve Leung OD, is now offering the
    parents of children on the threshold
    of nearsighedness (refractive status 0.0 diopters)
    the opportunity to use the preventive method.
    He is using the plus on his own children, as
    I recommended to my sister's children.

    We should all recognize the "medicine" is a
    profession that "reacts" to complaints,
    and becomes pure-reactive in many areas.

    What is needed here is a more "open" mind
    about the natural eye, and a willigness
    to consider alternatives -- even difficult
    alternatives like prevention with the plus.

    Since Jan states that "the concept of
    the dynamic eye must be destroyed", it
    obviously makes intelligent analysis
    and review virtually impossible.

    As a practical matter, that statement
    forces anyone who wishes to AVOID nearsightedness -- to
    avoid Jan, and solve the problem for himself.

    I deeply regret this "attitude" because I
    consider a "meeting of the minds" to be
    the first rational step in solving the
    problem of effective prevention.

    So enjoy the conversations and problems-solving
    efforts. We can all learn from this
    scientific-anlytical effort.



    Otis Brown, Nov 10, 2004
  9. Otis Brown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest


    (Otis Brown) wrote in
    Dr. Leukoma, Nov 10, 2004
  10. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Yes, Old man Leukoma will fight like hell to
    avoid facing scientific fact from being presented
    to a young man who wishes to avoid nearsighedness.

    You seem to miss the concept that a person
    has a right to an informed choice in this
    matter. If he can master the art of
    successful prevention then he should
    do so.

    He pays attention to the experimental
    verification (Primate, adolecent) that
    proves that the natural eye's refractive
    status moves negative from a negative-change
    in its average visual enviroment.

    You (or Judy) tell me you are going to IGNORE all
    the data from animal studies.

    Scientific data is important. YOu choose to
    ignore it -- he takes it seriously.

    He is more a scientist that you are.

    He also follows the advice of a licensed
    professional, Dr. Steve Leung.

    He has the right to understand the issue
    of contradition.


    Otis Brown, Nov 10, 2004
  11. Otis Brown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    It bears repeating that you are pushing unproven theories upon the


    (Otis Brown) wrote in
    Dr. Leukoma, Nov 11, 2004
  12. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    Given the hard work Shawn has done over the
    last six months, I would not say "spontaneous",
    like his vision would have cleared to 20/20 whether
    he intensively used the plus -- or not.

    Since I have posted his commentary on my site, you
    will find that his vision cleared VERY SLOWLY, and
    only by intense effort did he finally reach 20/20.

    In fact his vision "hung" at 20/25 for about six
    to eight weeks.

    It is clear that Shawn will have to decide on
    the word that best describe his intelligent
    SCIENTIFIC work to get the refractive
    status of his natural eye's to change
    in a positive direction.

    Thanks for your commentary.



    cc Shawn
    Otis Brown, Nov 11, 2004
  13. Otis Brown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Either publish it or can it.


    (Otis Brown) wrote in
    Dr. Leukoma, Nov 11, 2004
  14. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    What you are talking about here is your ASSUMED box-camera
    representation of the eye -- developed by Donders-Helmoltz.

    The natural eye IS NOT AN OPTICAL BENCH -- and the analogy
    fails completely.

    The natural eye changese its refractive status as the
    visual environment is changed. This is a DYNAMIC concept
    of the NATURAL EYE.

    By Input-Ouput testing you either PROVE that all
    natrual eyes obey the e ^ (-t/TAU) function, or
    you prove your "passive eye" concept.

    Since Francis Young PROVED the e ^ (-t/TAU) function
    (i.e., the natural eye's refractive status changes
    as the visual environment is changed) then I think
    we have a fundamental SCIENTIFIC (not medical) argument.

    The evaluation of this experimental data is a matter
    of interpertation. Since you do not review
    this experimental data -- I do not expect you
    will understand it.

    In a deeper sense we are arguing about a mathematical
    model that ACCURATELY represents the dynamic
    behavior of the natural eye.

    Those interested in the "philosophy of science" should
    read Thomas Kuhn's, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".
    For people of an anlytical mind -- the truth becomes
    rather obvious over time.

    The refractive status of the natural eye is correlated
    to its average visual environment -- and the
    correlation coefficient is 0.97. You insist
    there is NO correlation, or do not know how
    to calculate it from the experimental data.



    cc: Optometrists, scientists and engineers
    who know how to analyize the natural eye's behavior
    and demonstrate clearing from -1.5 diopters to 20/20 or better.

    Otis Brown, Nov 11, 2004
  15. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Dr. L,

    Subject: Published

    In fact the I prepared and presented the concept
    that the natural eye is dynamic -- and when
    a person (under HIS CONTROL) can clear his
    distant vision from -1.5 dioters to 20/20.

    You refuse to believe it -- and that truly
    is the problem.

    But I will pass your information on to
    Shawn. He is young and does not understand
    the "power politics" and "social position"
    you maintain.

    His vision is not clear. His life is before
    him. He can now keep his distant vision
    clear for the next seven years (college),
    and choose a professional pilot career
    if that is his choice.

    If he wishes he can monitor our pleasant
    discussions about his future visual


    Otis Brown, Nov 11, 2004
  16. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear DrL,

    Subject: Prove SCIENTIFIC concepts, versus BOX-Camera concept.

    The concept that the natural eye (entire population -- not
    selected individuals) is dynamic (versus not-dynamic) is
    prove on a scientific level. Shawn has every right
    to review this explicit, repeatable scientific data
    and decide this issue for himself.

    As far as being "gullible", I rather doubt it. You
    are basically insulting his intelligence in the matter.

    He knows full-well that other optometrists
    advocate prevention with a plus lens -- and that
    he has the right to choose between these obviously
    contradictory methods.

    That is not "gullible" that is being wise and intelligent
    about your long-term visual welfare.



    cc: Shawn
    Otis Brown, Nov 11, 2004
  17. (Otis Brown) wrote in
    You keep referring to this work. Why don't you enlighten us as to what you
    think the Kuhnian Revolution is for this specific situation?

    Scott Seidman, Nov 11, 2004
  18. Otis Brown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Your little semantic games don't cut it with us.


    (Otis Brown) wrote in
    Dr. Leukoma, Nov 11, 2004

  19. Don't forget to remove your glasses otherwise your laughtsrs will be
    somehow repressed...
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Nov 11, 2004
  20. Otis Brown

    A Lieberman Guest

    Whoa!!! STOP THE PRESSES!!!

    Otis, you said Shawn was NOT a child!

    expect him to make adult decisions about his vision???


    A Lieberman, Nov 11, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.